found this re royalty., page-17

Your aggressive tone is what I find amusing. Resorting to calling me names like marxsy, boss and punter fill me with laughter. You clearly don’t like to be challenged. You don’t know me so the personalisation of your responses are of no consequence to me.

I don’t think CVY’s contractual rights will be unilaterally alienated because in my opinion Nuinsco is unlikely to be able to on sell its 3% NSR without Coventry’s consent. This is likely to be one of the condition precedents. Nuinsco would likely need to notify Coventry under the terms of the royalty agreement of its intentions and seek Coventry’s consent.


This all comes back to my previous point about statements that you have posted that you continue to ignore.

"1. an 'arms length' party has purchased the SMR from Nuinsco for $5.1 million"

...is factually incorrect. No one has bought or purchased anything! There are condition precedents. Nuinsco has entered into an agreement to sell the royalty and that conditions to closing are typical for a transaction of this type, including completion of legal due diligence, regulatory approvals and receipt of required consents.

The Forward-Looking Statements section of Nuinsco’s royalty press release is a case in point.

"Go re-read the terms of the royalty deal between CVY and Nuinsco."

You mean the one paragraph statement you post from the press releases? This is not the terms of the royalty agreement. It is a brief explanatory sound bite in a press release. As I said before, the royalty agreement would detail the conditions / terms upon which the agreement operates. These paragraphs mean nothing without the clauses in the agreement.

No doubt you will need to have the last word. However, I will contain myself until after CVY announces its intentions in relation to Nuinsco’s proposed sale of its 3% NSR.

Marxist.